2003 AIAA Cessna/ONR Design Build Fly Competition

Design Presentation

Oklahoma State University Orange Team

The The OrangeOrange Team Team

Our Team: G.R.A.D.S. 2003Our Team: G.R.A.D.S. 2003Global Rodent Airborne Global Rodent Airborne Delivery ServiceDelivery Service

Our Plane: Kitty HawkOur Plane: Kitty Hawk

Presentation OverviewPresentation Overview

Team ArchitectureTeam ArchitectureGroup Group

ResponsibilitiesResponsibilitiesAerodynamics Aerodynamics

GroupGroupStructures GroupStructures Group

Propulsion GroupPropulsion GroupAircraft OverviewAircraft OverviewFinancial SummaryFinancial SummaryVideoVideoQuestions Questions

Team ArchitectureTeam Architecture

Group ResponsibilitiesGroup Responsibilities

Aerodynamics GroupAerodynamics GroupSizing and configuration of aircraft Sizing and configuration of aircraft Perform sensitivity studiesPerform sensitivity studiesFlight performance analysisFlight performance analysisMission SelectionMission Selection

Group ResponsibilitiesGroup Responsibilities

Structures Group Structures Group Structural design, analysis, and construction Structural design, analysis, and construction

of the aircraftof the aircraftDetermining how the aircraft fits in the boxDetermining how the aircraft fits in the boxMaterial and construction method selectionMaterial and construction method selectionCreate all construction documentsCreate all construction documents

Group ResponsibilitiesGroup Responsibilities

Propulsion Group Propulsion Group Testing and analysis of possible propulsion Testing and analysis of possible propulsion

componentscomponentsSelection of propulsion system componentsSelection of propulsion system componentsTesting, maintenance, upkeep, and Testing, maintenance, upkeep, and

installation of propulsion and electrical installation of propulsion and electrical systemssystems

Aerodynamics GroupAerodynamics Group

Andy Gardos (Lead)Andy Gardos (Lead)Valerie BarkerValerie Barker

Aerodynamics GroupAerodynamics Group

Aircraft DesignAircraft DesignGoal is to design a competitive aircraft for the Goal is to design a competitive aircraft for the

competitioncompetition

Design PhasesDesign PhasesConceptualConceptualPreliminaryPreliminaryDetailDetail

Conceptual DesignConceptual Design

Mission SelectionMission SelectionAirplane ConfigurationAirplane ConfigurationAircraft Component ConfigurationsAircraft Component Configurations

Mission SelectionMission Selection

Optimization analysis for maximizing scoreOptimization analysis for maximizing scoreResults: Fly Missions A and BResults: Fly Missions A and B

Airplane ConfigurationAirplane Configuration

Four basic configurations were discussedFour basic configurations were discussedCanardCanardBiplaneBiplaneFlying WingFlying WingConventionalConventional

CanardCanard

ProsProsIncreased liftIncreased lift

ConsConsRAC increaseRAC increaseSizing constraintsSizing constraintsStall characteristicsStall characteristics

BiplaneBiplane

ProsProsIncreased liftIncreased liftWing span reductionWing span reduction

ConsConsRAC penaltyRAC penaltyIncreased weightIncreased weightNot necessaryNot necessary

Flying WingFlying Wing

ProsProsRAC reductionRAC reduction

No tail & fuselageNo tail & fuselageLess drag due to Less drag due to

streamlined shapestreamlined shapeConsCons

Handling qualitiesHandling qualitiesFitting into the boxFitting into the boxAssemblyAssembly

ConventionalConventional

ProsProsSimplicitySimplicityGood handling qualitiesGood handling qualitiesEasier to fit in the boxEasier to fit in the boxReasonable RACReasonable RAC

ConsConsLarger wing span as compared to other Larger wing span as compared to other

conceptsconcepts

Other Aircraft ComponentsOther Aircraft Components

Main aircraft componentsMain aircraft componentsWingWingTailTailFuselageFuselage

Wing DesignWing Design

Airfoil ShapeAirfoil ShapeWing SizeWing SizeWing Vertical LocationWing Vertical LocationControl SurfacesControl Surfaces

Wing Airfoil SelectionWing Airfoil Selection

Optimization analysis used to determine Optimization analysis used to determine the airfoil giving the best overall score.the airfoil giving the best overall score.

A high lift airfoil was selected.A high lift airfoil was selected.

Wing SizeWing Size

Initial area and span estimates were Initial area and span estimates were provided by our optimization analysis provided by our optimization analysis programprogramWing Area – 7 ftWing Area – 7 ft22 to 11 ft to 11 ft22

Wing Span – 7 ft to 8 ftWing Span – 7 ft to 8 ft

Wing Vertical LocationWing Vertical Location

Low WingLow Wing Pros: Single attach point for gear and wingPros: Single attach point for gear and wing Cons: Payload interference, may need dihedralCons: Payload interference, may need dihedral

Mid WingMid Wing Pros: Less drag for certain fuselage cross-sectionsPros: Less drag for certain fuselage cross-sections Cons: Payload interference, difficult to constructCons: Payload interference, difficult to construct

High WingHigh Wing Pros: No interference with payload drop, no dihedral Pros: No interference with payload drop, no dihedral

necessarynecessary Cons: Multiple attach points for gear and wingCons: Multiple attach points for gear and wing

Wing Control SurfacesWing Control Surfaces

AileronsAileronsSized using historical estimations from textSized using historical estimations from text

25 – 30% of wing chord25 – 30% of wing chord45 – 60% of wing span45 – 60% of wing span

FlapsFlapsNot necessaryNot necessary

The high lift Eppler airfoil should provide sufficient The high lift Eppler airfoil should provide sufficient lift to meet the takeoff distance requirementslift to meet the takeoff distance requirements

Tail DesignTail Design

T-tailT-tail Pros: Horizontal stabilizer effectivityPros: Horizontal stabilizer effectivity Cons: Weight increaseCons: Weight increase

ConventionalConventional Pros: Proven design, adequate controlPros: Proven design, adequate control Cons: Increased RACCons: Increased RAC

V-tailV-tail Pros: Lower RAC, less interference dragPros: Lower RAC, less interference drag Cons: Complexity, adverse yawCons: Complexity, adverse yaw

Tail AirfoilTail Airfoil

NACA 0009 AirfoilNACA 0009 AirfoilSymmetrical airfoilSymmetrical airfoilEasy to manufactureEasy to manufacture

Fuselage DesignFuselage Design

Conventional with boomConventional with boomMain fuselage usesMain fuselage uses

StorageStorageStructural attach pointStructural attach point

Boom advantagesBoom advantagesDecreased weightDecreased weightCollapsibilityCollapsibility

Sensitivity StudiesSensitivity Studies

Drag EstimatesDrag EstimatesIncreased parasite drag does not significantly Increased parasite drag does not significantly

increase takeoff distanceincrease takeoff distance

Propulsion EfficienciesPropulsion EfficienciesEfficiencies greatly affect the takeoff distanceEfficiencies greatly affect the takeoff distance

Score was not greatly affected by varying Score was not greatly affected by varying parametersparameters

Drag TestsDrag Tests

Full scale model of prototype analyzed Full scale model of prototype analyzed using break down method to determine using break down method to determine drag contributions.drag contributions.

Preliminary SizingPreliminary Sizing

Optimization AnalysisOptimization AnalysisWing area, wingspan, battery weight, battery Wing area, wingspan, battery weight, battery

power in TO & climb, cruise velocitypower in TO & climb, cruise velocity

Raymer’s TextRaymer’s TextFuselage length, tail area, control surface Fuselage length, tail area, control surface

sizing, tail dihedralsizing, tail dihedral

Microsoft ExcelMicrosoft ExcelCG locationCG location

Sizing Trades & OptimizationSizing Trades & Optimization

Best ScoreBest Score Data Trends Data Trends Wing Area – 11.35 ftWing Area – 11.35 ft22

Wing Span – 8.0 ftWing Span – 8.0 ft TO Power – 836 WTO Power – 836 W Cruise Velocity – 54.3 ft/sCruise Velocity – 54.3 ft/s Battery Weight – 2.49 lbBattery Weight – 2.49 lb

OptimalOptimal Data Trends Data Trends Wing Area – 9.379 ftWing Area – 9.379 ft22

Wing Span – 7.958 ftWing Span – 7.958 ft TO Power – 1060 WTO Power – 1060 W Cruise Velocity – 57 ft/sCruise Velocity – 57 ft/s Battery Weight – 3.24 lbBattery Weight – 3.24 lb

Optimization analysis program ran to get data Optimization analysis program ran to get data pointspoints

Data TrendsData Trends

Stability CalculationsStability Calculations

Optimization program performed calculationsOptimization program performed calculationsStatic stability calculatedStatic stability calculated

LongitudinalLongitudinal DirectionalDirectional RollRoll

Dynamic stability not calculatedDynamic stability not calculated Our conventional design possesses static stability and Our conventional design possesses static stability and

should possess dynamic stability as well.should possess dynamic stability as well.

Aircraft DimensionsAircraft Dimensions

Wingspan = 7.958 ftWingspan = 7.958 ft Wing area = 9.379 ftWing area = 9.379 ft22

Wing chord = 1.179 ftWing chord = 1.179 ft Fuselage length = 5.75 ftFuselage length = 5.75 ft Fuselage height = 7.25 inFuselage height = 7.25 in Fuselage width = 6.75 inFuselage width = 6.75 in Boom diameter = 0.72 inBoom diameter = 0.72 in Main fuselage length = 3 ftMain fuselage length = 3 ft

CG location = 1.212 ft

AC location = 1.295 ft

Tail area = 2.419 ft2

Tail span = 2.833 ft

Tail chord = 10.25 in

Dihedral angle = 30.6°

Struct. weight = 11.65 lb

Mission PerformanceMission Performance

Mission AMission AScore = 4.24Score = 4.24Takeoff Distance = 111.34 ftTakeoff Distance = 111.34 ftTotal Time = 3.82 minTotal Time = 3.82 min

Mission BMission BScore = 3.01Score = 3.01Takeoff Distance = 90.09 ftTakeoff Distance = 90.09 ftTotal Time = 4.11 minTotal Time = 4.11 min

Structures GroupStructures Group

Aaron Wheeler (Lead)Aaron Wheeler (Lead)Patrick LimPatrick LimCorky NeukamCorky NeukamKuniko YamadaKuniko Yamada

Carin BouskaCarin BouskaDon CarkinDon CarkinKatie HigginsKatie Higgins

Structures OverviewStructures Overview

Wing/tailWing/tailFuselageFuselagePayload DropPayload DropBoomBoomLanding gearLanding gear

Wing/Tail ConsiderationsWing/Tail Considerations

Composite or conventional?Composite or conventional?

Material ResearchMaterial Research

Jun-Dec 2002Jun-Dec 2002Studied 3ft sectionsStudied 3ft sectionsTest simulated Test simulated

contest wingtip test contest wingtip test

Strength to Weight Strength to Weight Ratio Results:Ratio Results:

Conventional 255.1Conventional 255.1Foam 201.0Foam 201.0

Wing/Spar ConnectionWing/Spar Connection

The wings were attached to each other with a The wings were attached to each other with a carbon spar through a spinecarbon spar through a spine

Fuselage Material MatrixFuselage Material Matrix

Fuselage Shape ConsiderationsFuselage Shape Considerations

Low DragLow DragFit in BoxFit in BoxConstruction EaseConstruction Ease

Payload DeploymentPayload Deployment

Simple MechanismSimple MechanismLow Profile TabsLow Profile TabsPositive Use of Positive Use of

GravityGravityRapid DeploymentRapid Deployment

Boom Decision MatrixBoom Decision Matrix

Shapes to be ConsideredShapes to be ConsideredEvaluation CriteriaEvaluation CriteriaScaleScaleOptimum ChoiceOptimum Choice

Boom Material ConsiderationsBoom Material Considerations

Weight Weight Yield StrengthYield StrengthDeflectionDeflection

Young’s ModulusYoung’s Modulus Ease of FlightEase of Flight

Weight Vs Material

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Material

Wei

gh

t (l

b/f

t)

Carbon Fiber

Stainless Steel

Aluminum

Deflection Vs Load

0.0000

0.2000

0.4000

0.6000

0.8000

1.0000

10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Load (lb)

Def

lect

ion

(in

)

Carbon Fiber

Stainless Steel

Aluminum

Boom TolerancesBoom Tolerances

LocationLocation Center Axis Center Axis

0.5°0.5° Distance from Distance from

Pinned EndPinned End

Sizing of Hole Sizing of Hole Tolerance Tolerance 0.001inch0.001inch

Snap-Pin Boom AssemblySnap-Pin Boom Assembly

External Locking External Locking Snap-MechanismSnap-Mechanism Spring loadedSpring loaded Self-lockingSelf-locking Retractable optionRetractable option

Snap-Pin Tail AssemblySnap-Pin Tail Assembly

Internal Locking Internal Locking Snap-MechanismSnap-Mechanism Spring loadedSpring loaded Self-lockingSelf-locking Foldable optionFoldable option

Main Gear AssemblyMain Gear Assembly

External Locking External Locking Snap-MechanismSnap-Mechanism

Quick Quick Assembly/StorageAssembly/Storage

Forward Swept Forward Swept Pneumatic Braking Pneumatic Braking

SystemSystem

Propulsion GroupPropulsion Group

Brandon Blair (Lead)Brandon Blair (Lead)Mike DuffyMike DuffyPhung LyPhung Ly

System ComponentsSystem Components

Contest RequirementsContest Requirements

MotorsMotorsBattery PoweredBattery PoweredAstro Flight or Graupner BrandsAstro Flight or Graupner BrandsBrushedBrushed

BatteriesBatteriesNickel Cadmium (NiCad)Nickel Cadmium (NiCad)Maximum Five Pound Weight LimitMaximum Five Pound Weight Limit

Contest RequirementsContest Requirements

PropellersPropellersCommercially ProducedCommercially ProducedMust Fit in Box (Less than 24 in.)Must Fit in Box (Less than 24 in.)

MiscellaneousMiscellaneous40 Amps Maximum Current40 Amps Maximum Current

Qualitative AnalysisQualitative Analysis

Motor ConfigurationsMotor ConfigurationsCostCostRated Aircraft Cost (RAC)Rated Aircraft Cost (RAC)WeightWeight

PropellersPropellersHistorical PerspectiveHistorical PerspectiveGround ClearanceGround Clearance

Testing PhaseTesting Phase

MotorsMotorsRam-air Cooling ModificationsRam-air Cooling Modifications

PropellersPropellersFolding and Traditional DesignsFolding and Traditional Designs

BatteriesBatteriesEnduranceEndurance

Final SpecificationsFinal Specifications

Motor: Astro Flight Cobalt 40Motor: Astro Flight Cobalt 40Gearbox: Superbox 3.1:1 RatioGearbox: Superbox 3.1:1 RatioPropeller: APC 20” x 13” EPropeller: APC 20” x 13” EBatteries: 24 Cells, 2400 mAhBatteries: 24 Cells, 2400 mAhCruise Power: 650 WCruise Power: 650 W

Aircraft AssemblyAircraft Assembly

Final AircraftFinal Aircraft

Flight TestingFlight Testing

PrototypePrototype9 Total and Successful flights9 Total and Successful flightsRefined power requirementsRefined power requirementsFine tuned center of gravityFine tuned center of gravity

Final AircraftFinal AircraftDisplayed improved flight handling qualitiesDisplayed improved flight handling qualitiesShowed improved power usage and Showed improved power usage and

increased speedincreased speed

PrototypePrototype13.43 pounds13.43 pounds

Final AircraftFinal Aircraft11.65 pounds11.65 poundsSmaller boom and fuselageSmaller boom and fuselageMore aerodynamic and efficient tailMore aerodynamic and efficient tail

Prototype vs. Final AircraftPrototype vs. Final Aircraft

Financial OverviewFinancial Overview

FundingFundingCorporate SponsorsCorporate SponsorsPrivate DonationsPrivate DonationsTeam MembersTeam Members

ExpensesExpensesMechanical and Electrical ComponentsMechanical and Electrical ComponentsConstruction MaterialsConstruction MaterialsConsumablesConsumables

Expense CategoriesExpense Categories

Aero Srv.Aero Srv.Paul ChaneyPaul Chaney Industrial Rubber, Inc.Industrial Rubber, Inc.Westex Document Westex Document

Destruction, Inc.Destruction, Inc.SullivanSullivanWhiteheadWhitehead ICESICES

Thanks To Our SponsorsThanks To Our Sponsors

PeasCockPeasCockWilcoxWilcoxOGEOGEMercruiserMercruiserEl Chico’sEl Chico’sNASANASADitch WitchDitch WitchOSU SGAOSU SGA

Dr. Arena and Joe, without whom we would not Dr. Arena and Joe, without whom we would not be here todaybe here today

Dan Bierly, our pilotDan Bierly, our pilotRonnie LawhonRonnie LawhonJohn Hix for video assistanceJohn Hix for video assistanceDitch Witch for the use of their airportDitch Witch for the use of their airportDr. Delahoussaye for technical assistanceDr. Delahoussaye for technical assistanceDanny Shipka for printing services and designDanny Shipka for printing services and designRuben Ramen for designing our team logoRuben Ramen for designing our team logo

Special Thanks to...Special Thanks to...

Questioning Period Questioning Period After VideoAfter Video